AMENDED & ADOPTED 2/24/15
1
Introduced and amended by the Land Use and Zoning Committee:
2
3
4
RESOLUTION 2015-35-A
5
A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE APPEAL, FILED BY
6
CHRISTOPHER A. WHITE, OF A FINAL DECISION OF
7
THE
8
COMMISSION
9
PART
JACKSONVILLE
HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
DENYING IN PART AND
APPLICATION
FOR
APPROVING
CERTIFICATE
(COA-14-795)
OF
10
APPROPRIATENESS
11
MICHAEL
12
MONTEIRO,
13
WINDOWS AND TWO DOORS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
14
AT 3026 ST. JOHNS AVENUE, (COUNCIL DISTRICT
15
14), PURSUANT TO PART 2 (APPELLATE PROCEDURE),
16
CHAPTER
17
PROTECTION),
18
RECOMMENDED
19
LAND USE AND ZONING COMMITTEE TO AFFIRM THE
20
DECISION
21
PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND DENY THE APPEAL;
22
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
DUNLAP,
TO
307
ON
BEHALF
REPLACE
52
OF
THE
OF
DR.
WITH
CODE;
BY
PAUL
PRESERVATION
ORDINANCE
AND
REQUESTED
WINDOWS
(HISTORIC
FINDINGS
AS
IN
NEW
AND
ADOPTING
CONCLUSIONS
JACKSONVILLE
OF
THE
HISTORIC
23
24
WHEREAS, Michael Dunlap, on behalf of Dr. Paul Monteiro, filed
25
Certificate of Appropriateness application (COA 14-795) on October
26
22,
27
windows and two doors for the property located at 3026 St. Johns
28
Avenue, (Council District 14); and
29
2014,
requesting
WHEREAS,
after
to
replace
public
Commission
52
hearing,
(JHPC)
original
the
approved
windows
Jacksonville
with
with
new
Historic
30
Preservation
conditions
the
31
replacement of 4 windows and two doors as set forth in the Final
AMENDED 2/24/15
1
Order
2
denied the replacement of the remaining 48 windows; and
3
On
COA-14-795
WHEREAS,
dated
pursuant
to
November
Section
24,
2014
307.201,
(Final
Order)
but
Code,
the
Ordinance
4
applicant filed a notice of appeal within 21 calendar days of the
5
Final Order; and
6
7
WHEREAS, the appeal was timely filed and the appellant, does
have standing to appeal; now therefore
8
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Jacksonville:
9
Section 1.
Adoption
of
findings
and
conclusions.
10
Pursuant to Chapter 307 (Historic Preservation and Protection),
11
Part
12
reviewed
13
Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission (“JHPC”) on COA 14-
14
795, concerning the request for a total window replacement for a
15
property located at 3026 St. Johns Avenue. The entire record of
16
proceedings is located in the City Council Legislative Services
17
Division.
18
archives of the Land Use and Zoning Committee (“LUZ”) for February
19
18, 2015, and is located on the recording at time mark 1:04 to
20
2:25.
21
Land
22
substantial evidence presented and contained in the record, the
23
Council hereby makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions
24
of Law.
25
26
2
(Appellate
the
Procedure),
record
of
Ordinance
proceedings
Code,
regarding
the
an
Council
appeal
of
has
the
A video of the proceedings is contained in the on line
The Council has considered the recommended decision of the
Use
and
Zoning
Committee
and
based
upon
the
competent,
I. Findings of Fact:
The subject property is a riverfront home located within the
27
Riverside
Avondale
Historic
District.
28
Historic District was locally designated as an historic district by
29
the City of Jacksonville in 1998.
30
purchased the property approximately one year ago.
2
The
Riverside
Avondale
The current property owner
The property
AMENDED 2/24/15
1
owner was represented at the Jacksonville Historic Preservation
2
Commission and at LUZ by architect Michael Dunlap.
3
testified at the LUZ hearing that he had 33 years of experience as
4
an architect and was very familiar with the historic preservation
5
regulations and standards.
6
this structure was not subject to the regulations he answered in
7
the negative.
8
The
Historic
Mr. Dunlap
When asked if he was ever told that
Preservation
Division
staff
report,
which
is
9
recognized as competent, substantial evidence, indicates that all
10
of the windows are original, or within the historic period, with
11
the exception of perhaps three.
12
the 52 windows sought to be replaced are located on the former
13
sleeping (or sun) porch and that those windows are not historic,
14
and thus not protected, because they were added sometime after the
15
home
16
standards on the rehabilitation of historic structures, and the
17
regulations contained within Chapter 307,
18
that even if the sleeping porch was enclosed after the original
19
construction of the home, the windows may be historical in their
20
own right, and may have taken on their own historical significance.
21
The Historic Preservation Division staff believes that the sleeping
22
porch windows are within the historic period and thus protected,
23
and the appellant’s architect could not say when the sleeping porch
24
windows were added, and offered no evidence that the windows were
25
not historic.
26
porch have attained their own historic significance and as such
27
fall within the purview of Chapter 307, Ordinance Code.
was
constructed.
The appellant argued that 20 of
However,
the
Secretary
of
Interior’s
Ordinance Code, state
The Council finds that the windows on the sleeping
28
Pursuant to Chapter 307, Ordinance Code, in order to justify a
29
wholsale replacement of historic windows, the applicant must prove
30
that over 50% of the windows are beyond repair.
3
Additionally, the
AMENDED 2/24/15
1
Secretary of Interior’s standards for rehabilitation of historic
2
structures states that, “deteriorated architectural features shall
3
be repaired rather than replaced whenever possible.”
4
The Council finds that the appellant did not present a case
5
that over 50% of the windows were irreparable.
To the contrary,
6
not
the
7
reparable, but the appellant’s own documents state that the windows
8
are reparable.
9
the property owner for the repair ($28,475) stated that the windows
only
does
the
staff
report
state
that
windows
are
The contractor that provided the cost estimate to
10
were
reparable.
11
testimony
12
appellant’s documents state that the repair of the windows would
13
cost less than the new windows ($42,000), thus there is no economic
14
hardship in repairing rather than replacing the windows.
15
that
Another
the
contractor
windows
are
also
reparable.
submitted
written
Additionally,
the
Rather than offer testimony that the windows were irreparable,
16
the
17
energy efficiency and a uniform look to the estate home.
18
the regulations state that it is not enough to desire a uniform
19
look or pursue energy efficiency. Expert testimony was presented
20
that proper restoration of windows with retrofit components allows
21
them to meet or exceed the efficiency of replacement units.
22
appellant
II.
23
argued
that
the
replacement
windows
would
offer
However,
Conclusions of Law.
The
historic
Ordinance
preservation
enhance
26
historic windows in a structure to be replaced, the applicant must
27
prove
28
appellant failed to meet this burden.
29
perceived energy efficiency is not a basis upon which a decision to
30
allow the destruction of the historic element of the windows of
over
50%
of
the
Further,
windows
4
are
in
design
to
appearance
permissible.”
“[w]indow
Chapter
25
that
that
in
307,
not
state
contained
24
is
Code
regulations
order
beyond
for
all
repair.
the
The
A desire for uniformity and
AMENDED 2/24/15
1
this estate home is appropriate.
2
The
decision
of
the
Jacksonville
3
Commission on COA-14-795 is affirmed.
4
is denied.
5
Section 2.
Legislative
Historic
Preservation
The appeal of the decision
Services
is
directed
to
mail
a
6
copy of this Resolution to the appellants and any other parties who
7
testified before the Land Use and Zoning Committee, or otherwise
8
filed
9
307.202(c), Ordinance Code.
10
a
qualifying
Section 3.
written
Effective
statement
Date.
as
The
defined
adoption
in
Section
of
this
11
resolution shall be deemed to constitute a quasi-judicial action of
12
the City Council and shall become effective upon the signature by
13
the Council President and Council Secretary.
14
Form Approved:
15
16
/s/ Susan C. Grandin______
17
Office of General Counsel
18
Legislation Prepared by Susan C. Grandin
19
G:\SHARED\LEGIS.CC\2015\Reso\Land Use General\2015-35-A.doc
5